A ‘crucial pivot’ in Venezuela's history

Boston College Law School Adjunct Professor Daniela Urosa, director of the school’s International Human Rights Practicum, is a Venezuelan native who served as law clerk for more than eight years in the country’s Constitutional Chamber and the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice; she also is an International Allied Professor at Venezuela’s Universidad Católica Andrés Bello. She offered her views on the outlook for Venezuela, even as the situation on the ground remains fluid; her comments reflect events as of January 9.

What is your sense of how Venezuelans are feeling now?

The recent events in Venezuela are a crucial pivot in the history of the country, and hence all Venezuelans, inside and outside its borders, are very attentive to the development of events, hopeful and at the same time worried.

Venezuelans are hopeful because the country has suffered a sustained deterioration of democracy and the rule of law for 26 years, regressing from a liberal democracy to a competitive authoritarianism, and from this to a dictatorial regime that totally denies public freedoms, does not allow free elections, and commits systematic violations of human rights—including torture, forced disappearances, and arbitrary detentions, among other abuses that are under investigation by the International Criminal Court as potential crimes against humanity. Based on corruption and criminal activities such as terrorism and drug trafficking, this regime has caused a deep humanitarian and economic crisis and the worst migration crisis in the history of the hemisphere, where almost eight million Venezuelans have been forced to leave the country. Therefore, for the first time in nearly three decades, the possibility of political change is glimpsed.

However, Maduro’s forced departure will not necessarily, in the short term, lead to the democratic transition and peace that Venezuelans yearn for. The opacity of the deep structure of corruption and illegal activities of the Venezuelan regime makes it hard to ascertain if there is a willingness within the regime and the army to bring about a democratic opening—or if Maduro’s departure could lead to a new stage of authoritarianism in which the absence of democratic freedoms persists or worsens.

Who is Delcy Rodríguez and with whom is she aligned?

From 2018 until Maduro’s capture, Rodríguez served as the executive vice president of Venezuela. The vice president is not elected but is appointed by the president. This appointment underscores the close political relationship between Rodríguez and Maduro. She has held numerous senior positions in Maduro’s administration over the past 13 years, including secretary of communication and information, secretary of economy, and president of the 2017 National Constituent Assembly convened by Maduro. She has been a prominent figure within the Maduro regime and has faced allegations of corruption, leading to sanctions by the U.S. Department of the Treasury since 2018.

These circumstances suggest an alignment with the continuity of the existing regime. Rodríguez’s initial actions following Maduro’s departure support this interpretation: She affirmed Maduro’s legitimacy as president, rejected his capture by the United States, issued a decree of external commotion that militarized the country, and ordered the arrest of individuals who collaborated in Maduro’s capture. However, events unfold quickly, and there are some signs of openness, such as the release of some political prisoners. As a result, both hope and concern are prevalent among Venezuelans at this critical juncture.

What are the prospects for a true, free, and fair election?

According to the constitution, in the event of the absolute absence of the president, a new election must be held within 30 consecutive days. During this period, the executive vice president serves as interim president. However, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued a decision on January 3 declaring Maduro’s absence as temporary. As a result, the vice president may assume the presidency for up to 90 days, with the possibility of a 90-day extension, after which congress determines whether the absence should be considered absolute.

As a Venezuelan constitutional and election law scholar, I think that even though universal and authentic elections are a critical step in democratic transitions, enabling participation by all voters—including those in the diaspora—current conditions in Venezuela do not ensure electoral integrity or the reliability of election results. Neither the electoral authority nor the judicial system overseeing elections operates independently, as evidenced by the 2024 presidential elections. In that election, despite opposition candidate Edmundo González securing a significant majority, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice upheld electoral fraud and maintained Maduro in power. Therefore, it is necessary to establish minimum institutional guarantees of impartiality of election institutions and mechanisms of election observation before proceeding with elections.

The Trump administration has offered multiple explanations for its actions, but one rationale seems most plausible: The White House wants American fossil fuel companies to benefit from Venezuela’s oil reserves—considered the world’s largest proven resource—despite the billions of dollars necessary to rebuild the country’s gutted oil infrastructure. Is oil the primary reason for the intervention?

Venezuela’s authoritarian regime has long been accused of engaging in international criminal activities such as drug trafficking and illegal mining, the transnational effects of which have served as a primary justification for the Trump administration’s actions against Maduro. In addition, the U.S. has demonstrated a strategic interest in Venezuela’s oil reserves. Among the initial measures announced by the White House following Maduro’s capture was the administration of Venezuelan oil exports, with the stated aim of ensuring that American companies benefit and that revenues are not used to finance illegal financial activities, corruption, or human rights violations in Venezuela. However, the specifics of these arrangements remain unclear.

What are the bigger, longer-term implications of this intervention?

From the Venezuelan perspective, this intervention will imply a before-and-after in terms of democracy, the rule of law, and governance. Venezuela has been a clear example of how, by electoral means, populist leaders can take office and procure a democratic decline by the weaponization of its own institutions to favor authoritarian policies, and how once every check and balance is void, there is no limit for corruption to the point that there is no way to restore democracy from within the constitutional framework.

As I said, this current turning point—though full of uncertainty and not necessarily desired—could be the first great step for the restoration of democracy, or it could mean the emergence of a new stage of authoritarianism that leads to a failed state. I am confident that the civic and peaceful struggle Venezuelans inside and outside the country have maintained these past two decades to recover their essential freedoms—personified by opposition leader María Corina Machado, who was awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize—will finally bear democratic fruit.